|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?"
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 11:32:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball PT PhD
Posts: 855
Joined: July 28, 2002
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline
|
Doug,
Your point about the potential downfalls of the analogy are well taken, but I think you overstate them. The idea was to illustrate the differences in philosophical underpinnings of qualitative versus qualitative.
You are right in saying that quantum mechanics are now in some respects quantified. However, the ideas were born from qualitative methodology before being tested quantitatively. There is still trouble with the numbers, by the way, as evidenced by the fact that the TOE (theory of everything) has yet to be completed. In other words, numbers can explain away quite a bit of quantum mechanics, but there is still (excuse the analogy) a numberic fudge factor there that can't yet be quantified. Qualitative methods, undoubtably, will reveal the covariate factors that will then be quantified. It's not an issue of what kind of research is better or worse (and I don't suggest Doug implies this), but rather driven by the state of the research question at the time the researcher approaches it. Question drives methodology, not the other way around.
Description and exploration is the first step toward quantification. Once can't exist without the other. The fact that quantitative researchers assume and are correct with identification of many variables shouldn't outshadow the fact that they don't usually find or account for them all. Qualitative researchers, essentially, like to focus upon the "uncertainty" that quantitative researchers ignore. Very simply, our efforts will make your future efforts much more productive --- and vice versa.
Secondly, you're kind of twisting the analogy a bit (again, not mine exclusively, but but one of Tomlan, Brydon-Miller, Hammel, Carpenter, Dyck, Shepperd, Domholt, etc.), uncertainty isn't what we're talking about. Every clinician knows that on different treatment days with the same patient they may do the same thing --- but get significant relief one treatment and a massive flare-up the next. Doesn't happen with every patient, and hopefully not most --- but it does happen. Enter not uncertainty, but multiple constructed realities, ethnography, and the idea that if we knew or understood a little bit about the situation, we may be able to better understand the situation and control the unknown variable . . . "What did you different this weekend Mr. Jones?" is a valuable, and qualitative question. The uncertainty of what that variable is is not the same thing as IF that variable exists. It can only be quantified (and should be) after being uncovered by qualitative investigation.
Consider the question "Why as a PT are you not a member of the APTA?" A qualitative question, but generally investigated via quantitative analysis (survey design). The problem with that is that if the researcher asks the question by survey, be it multiple choices of a limited number of variables, or in an open-ended question without follow-up, nothing is gained. The answer, of course, is generally "Cost." More than 90% of non-members questioned by McGinty said cost (assumed to mean price) . . . but economic analysis of national data suggests that price accounts for less than 9% of the reason that PT's don't join. (Interestingly, if dues were dropped to $70 per year, STILL less than all PT's would be APTA members --- only the APTA wouldn't have enough money to function as it currently does). If "cost" and "price" aren't the same thing, there's only one way to explore what those unknown variables actually are --- qualitative research.
It turns out, by the way, that "Cost," to the non-member PT, means that they'd rather spend x dollars on extras for their kids, or saving for a downpayment on a house, or saving for a downpayment on a car, or saving to open their own clinic, or saving to pay tution for a DPT, or about 1000 other "opportunity costs." Even at $70 per year, more PT's than not have other priorities than the advancement of their profession (opinion intended). We can now try to explore these variable quantitatively, but it's hard --- when confronted with telling someone that you're apathetic about the future of your profession versus "it's too expensive," most people lie unless asked a specific list of follow-up questions. It's an ego defense. It's human nature. It's an example of a multiple contructed reality --- what someone tells you (and actually BELIEVE) is the truth, versus what IS the truth. It's VERY hard, if not impossible, to get at that aspect of the human condition with numbers alone. Those kinds of situations, I'd argue, are just as important to clinical work as say, the specificity of the Myer's test for SLAP lesion (an excellent new test with over 80% specificity AND over 80% sensitivity --- a good read in JOSPT, by the way).
Drew
Regarding Dr. Harris, I've not seen her since the last conference in Boston, but have known her since she began working on the HINT. I trust that she's doing better, but if you (or anyone else) has information on how she's doing, please e-mail me at DrDrewpt@msn.com.
_____________________________
Dr. Andrew M. Ball, PT, DPT, Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 11:44:00 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2438
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Drew, since no one else is saying anything regarding your communication style, I will. Insinuating that Doug had to be at a qualitative roundtable discussion to communicate his knowledge of qualitative research is, for the lack of better terminology, being a**holish on your part. I don't understand why you believe that attempting to knock someone down in a rude, unprofessional and childish manner while at the same time elevating yourself is a decent way to communicate. I'd appreciate it if you could ignore your ego and have a polite, objective discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 12:46:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball PT PhD
Posts: 855
Joined: July 28, 2002
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline
|
SJ,
My communication style?!?!?!?
"If this is how leaders in qualitative research actually describe it, it is now wonder that the scientific community has been so slow in embracing it. I'm sure glad that the people who taught me about qualitative research did not do this."
I actually respect Doug more than most on the board, and I'm sure he took my post for what it was worth --- not a personal attack, but simply a reminder that with respect to qualitative methodology, he's speaking a little out of turn. He would, I'm sure, take me to take just as quickly were I to speak authoritatively and miscontructingly on a subject within HIS area of relative expertise. He didn't, I'm quite sure, take any more offense to my response than I did his initial statements. It's academic banter. It's what we do. It's what keeps us on our toes and keeps us from ever thinking that our ideas and/or the fruits of our research are so good they can't be challenged.
My post was simply responding in kind, not a personal attack. If you want to critique, at least do so objectively.
Sheesh!
Drew
_____________________________
Dr. Andrew M. Ball, PT, DPT, Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 12:53:00 PM
|
|
|
Barrett
Posts: 967
Joined: July 28, 1999
From: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
Status: offline
|
Maybe no one said anything because they did not feel Drew was being rude or condescending in any way whatsoever. I certainly didn't.
You cannot possibly justify complaining about what you imagine he implied while using that sort of language and characterization.
_____________________________
Barrett L. Dorko P.T.
http://barrettdorko.com
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 1:15:00 PM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2438
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
I personally find the following quite rude and uncalled for:
Doug,
I don't recall ever having met you at any of the APTA roundtable discussions on qualitative research. I'm also curious to know who taught the qualitative portion of your PhD, and how (if at all), you incorporated qualitative methods into your dissertation research. What was the make-up of your dissertation defense council? Givn your topic (qualitative or quantitative), how did members of your council respond and critique your work based upon their qualitative or quantitative training.
Sounds like you got a lecure or two in qualitative methods in your PT program from someone who doesn't actually do qualitative research. Your response to my analogy is therefore understandably . . . misguided and ill-informed.
Either you don't truly understand qualitative research, you don't truly understand quantum mechanics, or you don't fully appreciate the point that very well respected qualitative researchers have made (I didn't just make all this up), regarding the philosophical underpinnings distinguishing quantitative research from qualitative research, and Newtonian physics from quantum/theoretical physics.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 1:20:00 PM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
"There is some good information about qualitative research and some awful information. The choice of whether to use qualitative or quantitative methods should be based on the question you want answered, not on whether or not you believe in alternative realities. Qualitative research is a very legitimate and valuable method(s) of doing research"
Hello Doug,
I think that you were commenting on my post about multiple realities. I completely agree with you that your research question guides your choice of methodology. However, the way I see it, is that 'you' need to look at the research question with a conscious awareness of your world view or ontological and epistemological perspectives before you determine the methodology. By this I mean, where do you believe that knowledge originates from.... does it originate from scientific enquiry of do individuals construct their own knowledge (for example). This perspective of research is much less relevant for quantitative researchers because they have a positivist view, and therefore believe that there is a single tangible reality, which can be studied independently. When you get into the realms of the the more 'qualitative' research questions then it is imperative to realise that there isnt one answer or one reality. You are dealing with individuals, who all have differing perspectives and therefore the reality exists in the mind of the individual. In other words, reality is not objective, it is subjective i.e. what people see it to be.
Best wishes
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 1:27:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball PT PhD
Posts: 855
Joined: July 28, 2002
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline
|
"The choice of whether to use qualitative or quantitative methods should be based on the question you want answered, not on whether or not you believe in alternative realities."
Excellent point whoever made it.
I missed this statement earlier, and wanted to comment. I agree completely and did not mean to imply otherwise. The QUESTION drives the method used --- not the bias of the researcher or preferred mode of research. The problem is, that most researchers don't have expertise, or even experience in both, which often means handing off a question to a colleague better trained to answer it.
It's why my master's research used quantitative methods, and why my PhD used quantitative methods --- but not being able to completely answer the question --- continued with qualitative follow-up. That's not how I intended things, by the way. Like many other PhD's I had my defense pushed back for one reason or another. Mine was that my chairman died unexpectedly and that my new chairwoman was an expert in healthcare management, disability research, and above all, (bet ya'll can see this comming . . . ) qualitative research. So I went to schedule a defense with all of my quantitative data only to have a date set and a few days later get a call asking, in essence, "Previous researchers got one result, you used a novel approach to answer the question, did a great job accounting for the flaws of their research . . . but what would really be an interesting question isn't the WHAT's going on, but the WHY is it going on."
"I'm not trained for qualitative research," I replied.
"Get trained," was the reply.
I'm sure a dissertation could be written on all of the nasty things I wanted to say --- but didn't. Many classes and a year's worth of research later I defended. I'm glad it went down the way it did --- my question was answered much more completely.
Drew
_____________________________
Dr. Andrew M. Ball, PT, DPT, Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 4:40:00 PM
|
|
|
KAK
Posts: 200
Joined: December 1, 2004
Status: offline
|
I don’t want to take the discussion too far from quantitative/qualitative research and buzzed orangutans ;) , but I completed my polling today. I was too optimistic, only 42% of our therapists have read research the past 2 months-certainly not a majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 27, 2005 10:41:00 PM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
If anone is interested in qualitative research - I would recommend a truly excellent book -
Critical moments in qualitative research (2001) by Byrnne-Armstrong, Higgs and Horsfall (published ny butterworth heinemann)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 3:41:00 AM
|
|
|
PTupdate.com
Posts: 1477
Joined: October 8, 2001
From: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Status: offline
|
KAK....frustrating, isn't it? Just think, a licensed professional, with supposedly a growing role in health care delivery (ie direct access), and not even ONE article was read in two months!
The discussions of Drew et al, while interesting, are putting the cart before the horse. If we cannot even get PT's to read something in the first place, getting into such deeper topics almost becomes a futile effort.
KAK....ask your co-workers WHY they have not read something in the past two months. Not enough time (unlikely, with the average PT workday, but still may be used as an excuse)...no access to journals (another useless excuse). Perhaps finding out what some of the true reasons are will help the beginnings of a solution.
John Duffy, PT OCS
[URL=http://www.PTupdate.com]www.PTupdate.com[/URL]
_____________________________
John M. Duffy, PT
Board Certified Orthopaedic Clinical Specialist
www.PTupdate.com
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 4:49:00 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2438
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Hmm, Duff... would that be a qualitative study? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 4:57:00 AM
|
|
|
Dr.Wagner
Posts: 1242
Joined: January 24, 2003
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline
|
Sure is alot being said with very little quality. Almost as if people like to hear themselves speak.
PT Update, I agree with your statements again, and SJ I respect your chutzpah
_____________________________
Dr. Wagner DO
Moderator of Medical Complexity Forum
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 7:40:00 AM
|
|
|
Yogi
Posts: 403
Joined: April 5, 2004
From: San Antonio, Tx., USA
Status: offline
|
Now, Doc., I know what I say hasn't a whole lot of quality, I hope everyone can live with that, but I must hold you to task for saying that about everyone else. I, for one, am learning alot I didn't know here.
Interstella, must second what you said, reality is not objective. To paraphrase a hospital adminstrator when I had to deal with a pt's complaint, PERCEPTION IS THE PT'S REALITY.
There's a thought, we try to change what they perceive, i.e., pain, disability, so forth,...and CBT tries to change how they perceive. I won't take that any further as it might lead off subject, hmm, would that be good or bad? Well, that's a value judgment, Drew, is that a qualitative thing?
Doc, the first sentence is tongue in cheek, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 1:56:00 PM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
Dr. Wagner
'Sure is alot being said with very little quality. Almost as if people like to hear themselves speak.'
I dont really see the point in that statement. Would you prefer me to say nothing at all - should I write in a way that you aprove of - perhaps you could give me your recomendations of what you believe consitiutes a 'quality post'
My input to this topic was meant with passion for an area I have spent the last couple of years studying. I do not see this forum as a platform to make myself feel clever.
I hope your generalised put down made you feel clever.
pffft
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 28, 2005 4:19:00 PM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
I think saying 'pffft' to someone is grounds for banning from the forum. You should never 'pffft' a colleague publicly.
:)
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 29, 2005 1:24:00 AM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
I do hope you are joking, for pfft is a way of raising your eyes to heaven - it is not an insult, not an expletive - it is not rude.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 29, 2005 1:26:00 AM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
but I didnt notice your smiley Greg, so I guess you were joking ... oops, give me a humour transplant!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 29, 2005 5:05:00 AM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Yes, just joking. I hadn't heard of pfft before, and thought it was funny.
Have a great day.
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - May 29, 2005 5:51:00 AM
|
|
|
interstella
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31, 2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
Thanks - perhaps its an english thing?! You have a good day 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Is the Research Sound?" - June 14, 2005 10:49:00 AM
|
|
|
Bournephysio
Posts: 585
Joined: April 25, 2002
From: Calgary
Status: offline
|
Sorry to get back to this late. I've been a little busy. Whether Drew's comments were insulting are not is a little beside the point. They are not effective arguments in an internet setting. Very few people here know who Drew is or the quality of his work and very few people know who I am (2 or 3?) and I don't think any know the quality of my work. In an internet setting you have to go by the argument not the person making the point. Besides that in this situation being an expert in qualitative research is not enough, you ideally want someone who is an expert in qualitative research and quantum mechanics.
Drew: "Excellent point whoever made it." You can easily see that was my point. Your Einstein analogy still does not work. The process by which Einstein came up with his theories is the same as most other scientists including Newton. Qualitative research is not more like quantum mechanics than newtonian mechanics.
Wags, There is some very good info on qualitative research in this thread. Maybe you should look into taking a research methods course.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.094
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: "Is the Research Sound?" 
